A COLLISION between two aircraft that caused up to $3 million damage at Melbourne Airport could have been far more serious had the impact been a metre closer to a spinning engine, airport sources claim.

A direct hit by a reversing Virgin aircraft on to the running auxiliary power unit at the rear of the Jetstar A320 might have caused spinning components to fly out of engine casings and the potential for fire, Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association president Paul Cousins said.

Mr Cousins estimated the damage bill to both aircraft at $2 million-$3 million and blamed the accident on Virgin's decision to replace licensed engineers with lower cost ramp staff to conduct aircraft reversals known as "push backs".

"The money they have saved over the past 12 months (by the changes) would have all been swallowed up as a result of this," Mr Cousins said.

News.com.au's Privacy Policy includes important information about our collection, use and disclosure of your personal information (including to provide you with targeted content and advertising based on your online activities). It explains that if you do not provide us with information we have requested from you, we may not be able to provide you with the goods and services you require. It also explains how you can access or seek correction of your personal information, how you can complain about a breach of the Australian Privacy Principles and how we will deal with a complaint of that nature.

Comments on this story

Wayne of Brisbane Posted at 8:14 AM August 12, 2013

You think this is bad.You should see what's done at Brisbane Airport with cost cutting. The morale amongst airline employees and worse still, employees of contractors to various airlines is by far the worst in the country. And it can be argued that a couple of these contractors are in financial difficulty, due to losing contracts recently, and are now not paying employees, (what's left of them), correct penalty rates and minimum hours as per the Awards. Time for an investigation by Fairwork into contractors at all airports.

Comment 1 of 8

Knee Jerk of Sydney Posted at 8:36 AM August 12, 2013

Hmm, I really wonder if the pilots exchanged insurance information after the crash.

Comment 2 of 8

adam Posted at 10:06 AM August 12, 2013

does cost cutting mean they cant look with their eyes and see a plane coming the other way.

Comment 3 of 8

Chris of Brisbane Posted at 10:33 AM August 12, 2013

charter boat, what charter boat !!!

Comment 4 of 8

Gibbs Posted at 10:58 AM August 12, 2013

Planes can't reverse by themselves, they need a tug truck. At Hong Kong airport, ground staff stay with the plane until it has completely backed out of the gate, and is at least parallel to the runway, after which the tug truck disengages and stays with the plane until it moves forward.
Here In Melbourne, I've noticed that once everything is closed, all ground staff depart, leaving the tug truck by itself to reverse the plane. No wonder an accident occurred. There are no eyes or ears on the ground at all!

Comment 5 of 8

Bob of Adelaide Posted at 11:12 AM August 12, 2013

This is a result of cost cutting, and the final cause will be the person who was directing the push back, not ATC. The "pushback" operator is responsible for the safe clearance of the aircraft in their charge. The debate wether it should be done by LAME's or ground handling staff is irrelevant, by training your are told to "be aware" on the tarmac. Virgin, by reducing staff on the ground, eliminated a set of "eye's" at the wingtip. Probally Virgin and everybody else now only use 1 person to pushback aircraft, where as the military use 5, one at the tail, each wingtip, the actual tug operator and a supervisor. Hope you enjoy your cheap tickets as this is where the airlines compromise. Less boots on the ground equals cheap seats and less safety.

Comment 6 of 8

Alan of Adelaide Posted at 11:16 AM August 12, 2013

Rear view mirrors, reversing cameras, proximity buzzers... all standard fare these days on cars, but not on airplanes.

Comment 7 of 8

Barry of SEQ Posted at 11:20 AM August 12, 2013

More union hysteria. Are the tow operator and Supervisor's eye's painted on? Jeez, and the unions wonder why their ignored and unwanted now.

A NOTE ABOUT RELEVANT ADVERTISING: We collect information about the content (including ads) you use across this site and use it to make both advertising and content more relevant to you on our network and other sites.